Bombay High Court to shortly start hearing arguments by Kangana Ranaut against the BMC’s move to demolish portions of her property on allegations of illegal alterations.
Time had been given yesterday to recently impleaded respondents, Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut @rautsanjay61 and the @mybmc officer who ordered the demolition, to file their responses by the time their turn to address the Court reaches.
However, the hearing was fixed for today.
The Court yesterday remarked that it cannot leave the property in a half-demolished state while refusing to adjourn the matter further.
Birendra Saraf (for @KanganaTeam): The @mybmc said they would file their affidavit on Thursday. The affidavit was filed this morning. I will respond to the affidavit by Monday.
Aspi Chinoy (BMC): We have served it on Thursday night, when my friend got it I do not know.
Chinoy, referring to Kangana Ranaut's rejoinder: This should not be taken up as writ petition.
Saraf: It has been established that I had a difference in opinion from the people in power. I had a difference in ideologies, which I will continue to express.
Saraf adds that the timing of the case would also show that the case is one in malice
Saraf recounts details regarding when the property was purchased (2017), when permission was sought to carry out repairs to the 42-year old property in line with recommendation after a structural audit, how the MCGM noted that the repairs required were major etc.
Saraf: At every stage, we have engaged proper advisers and consultants and also informed the MCGM.
Corporation has been informed, Society was informed. It is not that something was surreptitiously done, Saraf adds
Saraf: On Sept 7, the officials of MCGM visited the bungalow and were there till .... They noticed that a worker was doing waterproofing work. The WhatsApp screenshots between @KanganaTeam and her sister show the time when the officials visited
Saraf: The timing is shown much later (by the BMC) in the inspection report. I will show these contradictions.
On Sept 8 I make a response, I write a letter that no work is being carried out as alleged. At the first opportunity, I told them no work is going on as alleged.
Saraf: On Sept 9 an order is passed... This given on Sept 9 morning, at 10.30 am.
However, on Sept 9, the entire machinery has gathered, even before the notice has been given.
How was the ground floor demolished? Bombay HC asks when it is told that the work on the ground floor had already been done (and that there were no violations from pending work).
Saraf: That is exactly the point, I bow down to your Lordships
Aspi Chinoy refers to a 3 foot ledge that was unauthorised and has been demolished. The jutting out part is seen, just near the ground floor and the first floor, he adds.
Court: Is this jutting out portion shown in the magazine?
HC asks Chinoy to get information on some aspects, including details of workers stated to have been found on the property of @KanganaTeam
Court: You can ask your designated officer, instead of us asking him and him getting nervous...
Saraf: The only statement made in the affidavit that workmen, material and tools were found at the time of inspection. No details, how many workmen, nothing at all
After I file my affidavit, please have a look at their (BMC's) additional affidavit. Please have a look at para 81.
Saraf: I don't see any affidavits saying that on Sept 5 any photographs were taken.
In the new affidavit, they say the mukadam took photographs also.
Now they say "six workmen" and that "materials and tools" were found ...
Saraf keeps reading the later affidavit of the BMC, refers to the submission that photographs were taken: They don't annexe these photographs...
Saraf: In their first affidavit they mention no material. In their second affidavit, they say material "like plywood". They are just trying to improve their case at every stage.
Saraf refers to BMC's submissions that there were "extensive renovation work" being carried out and that six workmen and material was found on Ranaut's property.
He goes on to says that there was no sketch that was up to scale, although circulars require such sketches
Saraf: The only thing produced is a photograph of 1 person standing on a stool or a ladder.
Refers to circulars issued by the MCGM, Saraf asserts that they have also admitted that sketches up to scale should be there.
Saraf also objects to BMC's submission that @KanganaTeam has not denied that there are unauthorised constructions, referring to page 30 of the petition.
In Ground L, it says that Kangana Ranaut has termed the BMC's allegations of unauthorised work were "perverse", he recites
Saraf: It (BMC's allegations) is never accepted anywhere
Referring to the conversion of some office space for toilet use, Saraf adds: I have said that some of the areas mentioned are in operational use, how can you say that it is unauthorised use?
Saraf: I have also said if you had given me a fair opportunity, I would have consulted an expert. And I might have possibly removed it myself if they recommended it.
Saraf adds that in new apartments: We always see teething issues. Jan, the bungalow was ready and occupied. Then there was COVID... Maybe there is touch work going on because of water leakage... bungalow was exposed to monsoons. Some touch up here or there obviously gets done
Saraf: The fact that somebody visited on Sept 5, that I have also said.
The point is when I put twice in issue that there is no "detection report"....
Saraf takes the Court through various photographs to state that the areas demolished in the bungalow were portions where construction was already over.
In page 159, look at the toilet. This is one of the things they say was unauthorised.
Court: It is demolished?
Saraf: Yes
Court: Something is cut, what is this?
Saraf: Must be a vent, I will find out.
Saraf: Sofas are there... 163, light fittings are there.... everything is completed, Milord.
Court asks that details be submitted on which floor these photographs are from.
Saraf: Page 166 - this was where the coffee machine (featured in the magazine) was kept. Pages 167, 168, 169 - none of these show work was being carried out. 170, there was a toilet with everything fitted in.
Court: When this Orange chap (architect) carried out the work, he must have taken photographs
Saraf says that he has been asking for photographs from others and that he will get more by Monday.
Saraf refers to comparative photos he has shown in the submissions.
Saraf: This shows the extensive damage done to my property, without any regard to what is lying where.
Saraf: At page 195, there is a person cleaning something on the ground. He is shown as a worker when he is looking at his mobile. This is the kind of extent they go to justify... the more and more you get entangled in it.
If detection was made on the 5th of September, Saraf says that there are circulars stating that the detection should have been added to the detection register on the same day.
Saraf adds that a rough sketch of unauthorised construction should also be prepared
Court refers to "detection register report" of BMC, referring to certain entries, it asks BMC: When was the notice given in these cases and when were the demolition?
Chinoy: Does your Lordships wanted it in term of a note or ...?
Court: We want it right now.
Chinoy: I don't have the details now....
He adds that he can obtain the details and submit it orally or by a written note.
Court says it can be submitted in whichever mode convenient
Chinoy: I can provide a short note on all of these...
Court: Very well.
Court says it will continue hearing the matter on Monday at 11 am. Court has asked parties to make their written submissions
Saraf says he will file an affidavit by Monday
Court: Give it Mr Chinoy by Sunday evening, please
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai to shortly address the felicitation function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
#SupremeCourt #CJI #felicitationceremony
SCBA President Vikas Singh addresses the ceremony
Vikas Singh: it’s a matter of privilege for me to do this for CJI Gavai. He was very reluctant to accept this function since he felt that a better occasion will be when he demits office and I speak about what he has done for the bar and for the institution rather than speak when he’s entering office.
Delhi High Court is hearing the petition filed by accused Mohd Javed challenging the release of the movie Udaipur Files.
The matter is being heard by Chief Justice Devendra kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy for petitioner Javed- 160 witnesses remain to be examined. I am entitled to fair trial under Art 21. First proposition is my right to fair trial is jeopardised by the relase of this movie.
[ Justice Yashwant Varma case to resume in Supreme Court today ]
Supreme Court will shortly hear petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the in-house committee report indicting him over the recovery of a large sum of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi
#YashwantVarma #SupremeCourtofIndia
Supreme Court had earlier questioned Justice Varma on his decision to challenge the legality of the three-member judicial committee after participating in its proceedings #YashwantVarma #SupremeCourt
Karnataka HC hears suo motu PIL case registered in connection with June 4 Chinnaswamy Stadium Stampede which left 11 people dead and injured over 50 people. Track thread for updates. Matter before Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty says judicial commission has now submitted its report covering most of the issues raised, which has to be placed before legislature which is slated to sit in August.
DNA's counsel tells Court that it has challenged judicial commission's report on ground that commission did not follow natural justice principles and DNA's reputation is being affected meanwhile.
Delhi High Court to decide on October 30 the petitions filed by Delhi riots accused Sharjeel Imam challenging trial court order framing charges and quashing of Delhi Police chargesheet in connection with the December 2019 Jamia University violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Justice Sanjeev Narula briefly heard the matter today.
Advocate Talib Mustafa appearing for Imam - Revision petition is challenging the trial court’s order on charge. All petitions arise of the same FIR. There is a separate writ petition also. Even prosecutors have come up against the same order.
Karnataka HC Division Bench hears appeal challenging single judge order directing National Law School of India University (NLSIU) Bengaluru to provide 0.5% reservation for transgender students in admissions until it comes out with its own transgender reservation policy.
Justices Anu Sivaraman and Rajesh Rai K are hearing the matter. Senior Advocate KG Raghavan appears for NLSIU, he says that the petitioner who whose plea the single judge order was passed was offered admission but he did not join and "missed the bus."
Raghavan: This was for the 3 year programme.
Raghavan tells Court that petitioner was told to pay the fee for admission to the course, and that he should fill financial aid form if he wished to avail financial aid.